Lamine Diack PROVES that I'm right, and that Bolt is golden and will NEVER test positive

Diack said nothing that wasn't already obvious.

Sprintgeezer is showing clear signs of sprintdementia.

Yes, it was obvious, but not confirmed by the IAAF.

Until now.

they confirmed nothing...

they said that if bolt were to test positive then he would test positive

that doesnt sound like some conspiracy to me

whether they're covering up his drug tests or not, this article released no additional info

Sprintgeezer wrote:

By stating that it would be a disaster rather than a triumph if Bolt were to test positive, Diack shows his hand.

If he were to test positive, it would mean that he was doping and that he was a cheater, and cleaning the sport of cheaters is always a triumph according to the moral values that the sport professes to embody.

I agree with you on this.

He also said, when referring to a potential Bolt positive "But I hope that doesn’t happen because we don’t need that."

He didn't say "I hope he isn't using PED's."

He said he hopes he doesn't test positive.

We already know it is quite easy to take PED's and not test positive.

He seems to be hoping that the testers don't catch him.

I agree that he should say a positive test would be a triumph, not a disaster.

But he has a vested interest in Bolt not turning up with a positive. He stated it would be a disaster and you want to avoid disasters.

He confirmed that he will never test positive because HE IS TRACK AND FIELD.

This article revealed Diack's perspective on what t&f is, and the role that Bolt plays, and how a positive test from an athlete who would have to be doped to return such a test would actually be considered by Diack to be not only damaging, but disastrous, rather than beneficial.

Everybody let this go too far, and like I said before, it is now the tail wagging the dog to some extent, and there is a power struggle going on. Once they let Bolt get away with the 9.72 WR, it was basically done--and when they let him get away with the goofed-and-negative-leaned OR/WR, it was over.

Now everything is sorting out, and everything seems to be being managed well, except for the one big thing--Bolt. He and his name are being maintained in the name of t&f, to the detriment of guys like Richard Thompson, the rightful 2008 Olympic 100m champion, and Churandy Martina, the rightful 2008 Olympic 200m champion--or, if you don't like them, somebody else.

Bolt is a giant stain on the history of sprinting, t&f, and the Olympics, but that stain is so big it covers basically the entire tablecloth, and everybody has learned to like the new (stained) color.

What nonsense are you spouting again. You can argue whether Diack is being truthful or not when he says no cover up. But he has gone on record here saying that a positive Bolt test would be publicly revealed. Sometimes in life there is really no conspiracy.

------------

“There is no chance of a cover up,” Diack said. “If he tests positive, he tests positive. It would be a disaster for our sport but we would have to say he is positive. But I hope that doesn’t happen because we don’t need that.”

Question is, overlooked by whom?

I think what you are talking about, and I have talked out in the past is disaster B. I think disaster A is that nobody takes T&F seriously, nobody cares any more. and nobody believes the results (like TDF now) because the Jamaicans are getting off scott free. I think Salazar is getting a free ride because Farah represents a European power (important in IOC lingo) and not some little island in the Caribbean populated by poor black people (yes, I do mean to imply that the IOC and its children are racist as hell--they give lip service, but the stop caring about black Africans when they start beating Europeans in races). I think right now the threat of losing international TV rights and sponsors because people put T&F in the same box they've already put TDF trumps the perceived risk of turning Bolt positive. Also, I think if somebody at an IAAF lab knows about a Bolt positive, you're not going to keep it quiet--that person can get way too much money from leaking it.

I think we are getting close to disaster A now, and as I've been pointing out in a couple of threads, WADA and IAAF ARE targeting Jamaicans now. I think what they really want to do is to give the Jamaican authorities the unmistakable message that they HAVE to clean up their act (the same message they're giving to Turkey more directly). The Jamaican authorities in their press conferences don't want to admit that they have a problem but the obvious indications of corruption (and I mean total corruption from the government of Jamaica all the way down to the athletes) are now so great that IAAF and WADA (and probably IOC behind the scenes being the real mover here) know that they have to take action.

The Jamaicans right now are mad as hell at Victor Conte for pointing out coverups (plural) by the Jamaicans. But these are coverups in Jamaica, not by the IAAF. The more technical problems here:

(a) You can't test for SARMS at all and there's only about a 24 hour window for HGH from what I've read.

(b) It's been known for years (there was an article about this in the NYT around 2008) that Jamaican athletes have been and probably still are being warned about the presence of IAAF testers.

If Glen Mills is smart, and I think he is, you will never test Bolt positive unless you can SURPRISE Bolt at the right time.

The Jamaicans are clearly warned. If they find actual evidence of complicity above the athletes, they should give Jamaica the death penalty. If they had done this after Ben 1.0, I think the international respect for track and field would be a lot better than it is now.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Bolt is a giant stain on the history of sprinting, t&f, and the Olympics, but that stain is so big it covers basically the entire tablecloth, and everybody has learned to like the new (stained) color.

Not a bad metaphor. Did you just come up with it?

I calling BS on this. Just the facts please. The recent positives came out of the JA trials and yielded 2 positives from two top sprinters on the island. So they do test in Jamaica and testing is not relegated to B-tier athletes only. Lets give credit where credit is due and stop with the lying which only hurts the sport.

d--

IMO you are right about a bunch of things, especially about IOC being the prime mover. The prime mover is where the MONEY is, and where it is managed.

You are also right about the IOC being euro-centric at the highest level of control. This I know.

You are also right about flagship athletes at marquee events, like Bolt in Beijing/Berlin/London, and Farah in London, and how coaches/camps/federations use these athletes as leverage in negotiations with governing authorities. It is a delicate balance, and there is certainly leverage to be gained, both in Jamaica and NOP.

It's almost as good as boxing--in fact, it's better, because the people who follow track are bigger chumps than those who follow boxing.

And look what happened to boxing. Does anybody even care anymore? UFC/MMA took boxing to its logical conclusion, and boxing is now dead.

Yeah, it's ok, but I think it could benefit from some polish.

Look at the Olympic Champions since Johnson was banned--since that time, only 1 has arguably been clean, Bailey in '96:

1992 - Christie (nandrolone)

1996 - Bailey

2000 - Greene (BALCO)

2004 - Gatlin (testosterone)

2008 - Bolt

2012 - Bolt

Bringing down the Olympic Champion in the biggest single event is a really, really big deal.

I think the IOC learned their lesson from the 1988 debacle--you can get guys before they become Olympic Champion, but once the deed is done, forget about it.

It's way too much trouble, it's a PR nightmare, etc. They're not going to test a men's 100m Olympic Champion positive, it's just not worth it. Maybe, just maybe, after enough time has passed, they can become fair game--but not during or shortly after the Games, especially when WC's come up the following year, like this year.

No way do the IOC/IAAF want another Johnson fiasco.

Really, I think that men's sprinting, and in particular Olympic men's sprinting, went through a huge depression since Johnson 88, until the arrival of Bolt. Not even Powell going low-9.7's could raise real interest. There was a brief resurgence in '96 because of MJ, but that disappeared with his self-destruction when he faked injury running a losing effort against Bailey in the 150m.

It was doldrums until...Bolt. Now, it's big-time again, and it grabs headlines, not just for doping, but for world records, showmanship, etc. Heck, there is even more interest in doping than there used to be. There were plenty of guys both doping and busted between 1988 and 2008, and nobody really cared. They care now, only because Bolt is around.

He single-handedly put t&f back on the map, resurrected men's sprinting, and along with Phelps, provided the required Olympic icon.

DoJoJo: "stop with the lying which only hurts the sport"

But please, let's continue the lying which doesn't hurt the sport, like lying about PED use.

coach d wrote:

The Jamaicans right now are mad as hell at Victor Conte for pointing out coverups (plural) by the Jamaicans.

Which coverups ? There obviously something weird in jamaican T&F but don't forget that pretty much every jamaican that got caught, got caught in Jamaica. You've got to wonder how the likes of Mullings, or Campbell-Brown never got caught while training in the USA under Gay's coach.

Blake's positive would have been extremely easy to cover since he tested positive to a stimulant in Jamaica that wasn't even listed...

But I'm not sure if "d" can be taken seriously, I mean he is the guy who is always trying to explain that C.Jeter is clean but every jamaican is dirty.

You and Geezer might be right, Bolt times are out of this World which is enough, to suspect him of doping, but it seems that you're suspecting him only because you have some kind of hate against the guy. You simply can't say that Bolt is dirty and making great length to tell us that Jeter is clean... that doesn't make any sense.

As for me, I have NEVER said that Jeter was/is clean.

And you know what? On behalf of all the people who Bolt has shut out over the years, yes, I have some kind of hate against the guy.

He's a liar and a cheat, a scumbag, an a-hole. I'm not some starry-eyed 10-year-old worshipping my idol.

For me, the end doesn't justify the means in this context.

All the clean guys who he has beaten out for spots, all the guys toiling away, doing the best they can, in an honorable way, following the rules that everybody tells them are good, and doing "the right thing", are being absolutely screwed by Bolt.

Every time he makes it into a final, there is the possibility that the 9th guy, who didn't make it in, has dedicated his entire life in the clean pursuit of the Olympic ideal.

How about Ramone McKenzie, who didn't make it into the final at nationals because Bolt took his lane? McKenzie is doing his part to make t&f everything it should be, and he gets the shaft.

Sure, if you think McKenzie is doped, you can just go down the line, and eventually you will find someone who is clean--that doesn't absolve Bolt of the wrongdoing of taking that lane in the final. It doesn't matter how far down the list you have to go, Bolt is still in the wrong. Other guys beneath Bolt may be just as wrong, but Bolt is still in the wrong.

Screw Bolt. I'm on the other side, looking back with perspective, and I know what I see. He's a young a-hole...incredibly talented at sprinting, but a young a-hole nonetheless, out for personal glory and gain, caught up in his own story, screwing all sorts of people along the way, and justifying it in any of the often facile and idiotic ways young 20-something men justify their wrongdoing.

Remember, there is really no difference between a bolt and a screw, except that the bolt is usually connected to a nut.

You're really weird... How many times have you said on this board that Bolt while being "dirty" would also be the fastest "clean" guy in the World.

Didn't you say that Bolt 9"76 (-.1) in Rome was run "clean" and that he would be the only one capable of running 9"8 low consistently?

Now , you're telling us that he is shutting out guys for a place in final because he's "dirty".

So if a "clean" Bolt is capable of running 9"7-9"8 (and those are your words not mines), how is he depriving "clean" guys ( supposedly Ramone McKenzie, which I think has never run 10.00s) from entering finals ?

You know that you only need to run 10.0x to make a major meet final. I am not even trying to defend him here but just to show your weird inconsistencies...

wow Sprintgeezer, thats a great post.

You don't understand the concept of "proof" very well do you?

Yes, I believe Bolt could have been one of the fastest clean all-time, maybe THE fastest--but he has most certainly used in my opinion, and therefore can never be considered clean by absolute standards.

I do believe that he could have been "clean" during that 9.76, which means in his case that drugs were not the immediate factor in that performance--but I'm sure that they WERE a factor, just not enough of one to generally acknowledge the particular performance as having been "doped".

Lots of people think that Bolt would be just a low-10.0x or high-9.9x guy had he been clean his whole career, but I think that he could have gotten lower than that. Look at Lewis, he was a technician, and he made it to 9.86, and low/mid 9.9x on a number of occasions.

The only reason that Bolt wouldn't have been as good as Lewis, or maybe better, would have been injury--which is the biggest problem among big guys who undertake to sprint.

IF big guys could stay uninjured, you would see some incredible sprinting from them, as you do from Bolt--but the point is, they CANNOT, and DO NOT, stay uninjured, which is a big reason why they don't sprint.

In fact, before Bolt's miracle season of 2008, he was struggling with injury himself, which is what was keeping him out of the game, naturally.

While drugs may not have been the immediate cause of the 9.76, they certainly have enabled him to beat/avoid injury and continue training in order to be able to deliver that 9.76, so by that standard in no way was it "clean".

Again, IF he could have remained clean his whole career, and IF he could have stayed uninjured long enough, I think that we might have seen the very first clean low-9.8x or even 9.78-9.80, under the right conditions.

I can't stand Bolt.

I will be laughing and heaving at the same time if Gatlin beats him in Moscow (which he won't).

[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:

I am pretty certain that there is widespread doping in Jamacia, but I am not sure Bolt is one of them. My belief is based on a lot of things, but primarily the fact that they were placed on notice a couple of years ago. Several of their top athletes have either called it a season or have been unable to reah their form for just a few years ago. Btw, JA was not asked to setup an antidoping program, they were directed to. In terms of Bolt, as far back as his Junior year in high school, I knew he was going to be really good, but I thought it would be in the 200/400...I am still having troube wrapping my hands around 9.58.

WADA has a thing called anomolies, which don't necessary reah they threshold of a positive, but when you see some of the same anomolies in several athletes that are connected the best you can do is ask them not to compete or try to scare them away. This tactic does not always work becasue think Turkey was placed on notice and they still competed.